EPIC Alert 18.21

=======================================================================
E P I C A l e r t
=======================================================================
Volume 18.21 October 26, 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Washington, D.C.
http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_1821.html
"Defend Privacy. Support EPIC."
http://epic.org/donate
=======================================================================
Table of Contents
=======================================================================
[1] American Travelers to TSA: Body Scanners are Unsafe, Unacceptable
[2] EPIC Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Privacy Enforcement Provisions
[3] US Appeals Court Protects Employees from Covert Video Recording
[4] Real-Life 'Minority Report'?: EPIC Obtains Government Documents
[5] EPIC to Justice Dept.: Maintain Strong Open Government Regulations
[6] News in Brief
[7] Book Review: 'Unpopular Privacy'
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
TAKE ACTION: Know What Facebook Knows! Demand Your Data!
- WATCH the Video: http://epic.org/redirect/102511-kwtw-video.html
- DEMAND Your Facebook Data: http://epic.org/redirect/102511-kwtw.html
- READ the Facebook Complaint: http://epic.org/redirect/102511-fb.html
- SUPPORT EPIC: http://www.epic.org/donate/
=======================================================================
[1] American Travelers to TSA: Body Scanners are Unsafe, Unacceptable
=======================================================================
In response to an EPIC Freedom of Information Act request, the
Transportation Security Administration has turned over 241 pages of
passenger complaints about body scanners. The TSA established body
scanners as the primary screening method for airports across the
country in the spring of 2009, although it never undertook a public
comment process, as it was legally required to do.
The documents, dating back to January 2010, reveal that travelers are
angry and frustrated about TSA screening procedures. The experience was
described in detail in one complaint: "I was basically herded into the
full body scanner and was not told I had the option of a pat down . . .
I feel my privacy was violated, and if I had been given the choice as I
was supposed to be according to TSA's guidelines, I would have chosen
not to be scanned."
Travelers expressed concern about radiation risks to children, the
elderly, and those with special needs. Other travelers emphasized that
the machines' ability to capture naked their images was unacceptable.
One traveler said that "Using [the full body scanners] is an extreme
invasion of privacy." Another openly attacked the TSA's policies: "The
failure of airport security to locate would-be terrorists should not be
paid for by law-abiding citizens with their liberty . . . instead of
stripping individuals of their liberty, the government should be
returning it so that they are even more equipped to defend themselves."
A third summed up his beliefs simply: "No no no to full body scanners."
In a previous FOIA lawsuit against the agency, EPIC obtained hundreds
of pages of complaints. The documents also revealed that travelers
were not being informed about the pat-down alternative to the scanners.
Earlier this year, in EPIC v. DHS, EPIC also obtained a judgment from a
federal appeals court in Washington, DC, requiring the TSA to conduct a
public rulemaking on the program and ensuring passengers' rights to
opt-out.
The rulemaking that resulted from EPIC v. DHS is particularly important
as it will allow the public to formally express its views to the TSA,
and will require the agency to justify its screening practices. The
agency's screening procedures will then be subject to court review,
which will determinewhether the TSA has respected the rights of
American travelers.
EPIC: FOIA Request to TSA (April 27, 2011)
http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/FBS-foia-request-FINAL.pdf
EPIC: TSA Passenger Complaints
http://epic.org/redirect/102511-tsa-passenger-complaints.html
EPIC: Sample of Previous Passenger Complaints to TSA
http://epic.org/redirect/102511-early-tsa-passenger-complaints.html
EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program)
http://epic.org/redirect/102511-epic-v-dhs.html
EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology
http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/
=======================================================================
[2] EPIC Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Privacy Enforcement Provisions
=======================================================================
In a "friend of the court" brief submitted to the US Supreme Court on
October 18, EPIC urged the Court to affirm Congress' power to pass
effective privacy laws by holding that individuals have "standing" to
sue to enforce Congressionally created rights.
"Standing" is a procedural hurdle that plaintiffs must clear to have
the underlying merits of their claims decided by a federal court.
The Supreme Court case, First American v. Edwards, concerns whether an
individual has standing to sue to enforce a provision of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), which gives individuals a
right to "untainted" real estate referral services, and whether
violators must pay a specified amount of damages. Because law in
Edwards' home state of Ohio requires all insurance companies to charge
the same price, Edwards did not have to pay a higher price for real
estate services as a result of First American's RESPA violation. Thus,
the Court must consider whether a statutory injury alone is enough to
give a plaintiff standing to sue.
First American v. Edwards has implications far beyond the real estate
services industry. Enforcement provisions granting individuals' rights
of action and awarding specified damages are found in almost all
federal privacy statutes and help ensure compliance with Fair
Information Practices, or FIPs, the foundation of modern privacy law.
Set statutory damage provisions are necessary because privacy harms
are often unquantifiable, and establishing a causal link between a
privacy violation, like poor data security, and a resulting injury,
like identity theft, is difficult. EPIC's brief argues that without
statutory damages "it would become virtually impossible to enforce
privacy safeguards in the United States."
The case has attracted attention from a variety of firms that collect
personal data, including Facebook, LinkedIn, Yahoo, and Zynga, which
filed a brief supporting First American and arguing against enforcement
of privacy statutes in certain circumstances. The Supreme Court is
scheduled to hear oral argument in the case on November 28, 2011.
EPIC: Brief in First American v. Edwards (Oct. 18, 2011)
http://epic.org/redirect/102511-epic-amicus-edwards.html
EPIC: First American v. Edwards
http://epic.org/amicus/first-american/default.html
US Ninth Circuit: Opinion in Edwards v. First American (June 2010)
http://epic.org/redirect/102511-9th-circuit-opinion-edwards.html
EPIC: Privacy Act
http://epic.org/privacy/1974act/
=======================================================================
[3] US Appeals Court Protects Employees from Covert Video Recording
=======================================================================
The US Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled October 12 that a police
deputy's privacy claims against her employer will proceed despite the
government's objections. The case involves Jane Doe, an employee of
Luzerne County, PA, who was secretly videotaped by a co-worker during
a mandatory decontamination shower. The digital footage was uploaded
onto a government computer and disclosed over the municipal network.
The appeals court held that Ms. Doe had a reasonable expectation of
privacy in remaining free from videotaping during the shower, and wrote
that "the potential harm of nonconsensual disclosure [of the video] is
exacerbated by the existence of the Internet, where one can upload
image and video files and irretrievably share them with the world in a
matter of moments." EPIC filed a brief and presented oral argument in
the case.
On September 13, EPIC Senior Counsel John Verdi argued that secretive
video surveillance, coupled with the storage and dissemination of
sensitive personal information, violates the right to informational
privacy and should be prohibited. Verdi stated that the case "presents
novel privacy issues involving new technology" and that "the District
Court failed to appreciate the unique damage caused by unlawful
disclosures over computer networks."
On April 14, EPIC filed a "friend of the court" brief in the case,
supporting Ms. Doe's recovery of monetary damages for privacy
violations. EPIC argued that the case implicates "freedom, intimacy,
autonomy, and human dignity," and urged the federal appeals court to
hold that the Sheriff's Department violated Doe's Constitutional right
to informational privacy.
Luzerne County Deputy Chief Ryan Foy, the officer who conducted the
video filming of Ms. Doe, served as the Sheriff's Department computer
administrator in 2007. In April 2008, a Sheriff's Department employee
found a digital copy of the video, as well as screenshots from the
footage, on Foy's old computer. The video contained images revealing
Ms. Doe's back, shoulders, and limbs. Doe testified that the rest of
her body was covered only with "paper sheets, almost like when you're
at a doctor's office." The trial court held that Doe's experience
"d[id] not rise to the level of a shocking degradation or egregious
humiliation" to merit Constitutional protection. The Third Circuit
reversed.
EPIC argued that "[t]he risk of improper disclosure of the naked
images of an employee placed on a computer network goes far beyond what
the Supreme Court called a 'mere possibility that security measures
will fail.'" The Court's "mere possibility" standard is derived from the
2011 decision in NASA v. Nelson, which set the standard to bring claims
under the Constitutional right to informational privacy.
EPIC: Doe v. Luzerne
http://epic.org/amicus/luzerne/
EPIC: Friend of the Court Brief in Doe v. Luzerne (April 14, 2011)
http://epic.org/amicus/luzerne/EPIC_Luzerne_Amicus_Brief.pdf
US Third Circuit Court: Opinion in Doe v. Luzerne (Oct. 12, 2011)
http://epic.org/amicus/luzerne/3rd_cir_op.pdf
EPIC: Audio of Oral Argument in Doe v. Luzerne (Sept. 13, 2011)
http://epic.org/amicus/luzerne/10-3921DoevLuzerneCountyetal.mov
EPIC: Video Surveillance
http://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/
=======================================================================
[4] Real-Life 'Minority Report'?: EPIC Obtains Government Documents
=======================================================================
EPIC has obtained, via a Freedom of Information Act request, documents
from the Department of Homeland Security about a secretive "pre-crime"
detection program.
Under the "Future Attribute Screening Technology" (FAST) program, the
DHS will collect and retain a set of "physiological and behavioral
signals" from individuals at large-scale venues. According to a 2008
Privacy Impact Assessment prepared by the agency, the DHS intends to
monitor and collect data including "video images, audio recordings,
cardiovascular signals, pheromones, electrodermal activity, and
respiratory measurements," in order to attempt to determine perceived
"mal-intent."
EPIC filed the FOIA request after news sources reported that Homeland
Security tested the FAST Project in a public location in early 2011.
DHS acknowledged the test but has refused to disclose the test results.
Similarly, the agency has refused to provide the test's location or
duration, stating only that testing occurred in the "northeast" and in
a "large venue that is a suitable substitute for an operational
ssetting," although not an airport.
According to the documents obtained by EPIC, Homeland Security is
considering the use of the device at conventions and sporting events.
The documents corroborate that a field test was conducted on the
public, as well as on DHS employee volunteers. DHS, however, failed to
comply with federal law when the agency neglected to do a privacy
impact assessment regarding the public testing.
EPIC: FAST Project
http://epic.org/privacy/fastproject/
EPIC: FOIA'd Documents FAST Privacy Threshold Analysis
http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/EPIC-DHS-FOIA-09-14-11.pdf
Declan McCullagh, CNet: Article on FAST Technology (Oct. 7, 2011)
http://epic.org/redirect/102511-mccullagh-cnet-fast.html
Department of Homeland Security: FAST Project
http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1218480185439.shtm#6
=======================================================================
[5] EPIC to Justice Dept.: Maintain Strong Open Government Regulations
=======================================================================
In extensive comments to the US Justice Department, EPIC has urged the
agency to preserve current Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) rules.
The Justice Department is considering regulations that would place new
burdens on FOIA requesters, including raising qualification standards
for educational and news media fee status; allowing agencies to
terminate FOIA requests; misrepresenting the existence of documents;
and destroying records subject to FOIA requests.
In addition, the Justice Department's proposed changes would affect
some FOIA procedures, including requirements for making FOIA requests;
the timing of agency response to requests, including who qualifies to
receive expedited processing; the degree of detail required to make a
request; and administrative appeals procedures.
EPIC's comments state that the proposed changes "would undermine the
federal open government act, are contrary to law, and exceed the
authority of the agency." EPIC also underscored that many of the
proposed changes were directly contrary to statements made by President
Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder about the importance of
government transparency.
EPIC has an extensive FOIA practice and has recently uncovered
documents about the FBI's Watch List, airport body scanners, and the
Department of Homeland Security's FAST "Pre-crime Detection" Program.
EPIC also publishes the Litigation Under Federal Open Government Laws
Guide, a leading source for FOIA practitioners and requesters.
EPIC: Comments on DOJ Proposed Changes to FOIA (Oct. 18, 2011)
http://epic.org/foia/EPIC-DOJ-FOIA-Comments-FINAL.pdf
Federal Register: Proposed FOIA Changes (Sept. 19, 2011)
http://epic.org/redirect/102511-fedregister-prop-foia-changes.html
EPIC: Litigation Docket
http://epic.org/privacy/litigation/
EPIC: FOIA on FBI Watch List
http://epic.org/foia/fbi_watchlist.html
EPIC: FAST Project FOIA Request
http://epic.org/privacy/fastproject/
Department of Homeland Security: FAST Project
http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1218480185439.shtm#6
=======================================================================
[6] News in Brief
=======================================================================
Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Strip Search Case
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments October 12 in Florence v.
Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington. At issue is
whether the Fourth Amendment permits a jail to conduct a suspicionless
strip-search of every suspect, even those arrested for minor traffic
offenses. The Petitioner, Albert Florence, was arrested based on an
inaccurate police record of his previously resolved traffic fine.
Florence was held for six days and subject to multiple strip searches
before he was eventually brought before a judge and released. EPIC
successfully argued before the Third Circuit in a related case, Doe v.
Luzerne, that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy
in remaining free from the government's recording of nude images. EPIC
also filed a "Friend of the Court" brief in Herring v. US, a related
case involving a Fourth Amendment challenge to an arrest and search
based on incorrect information in a government database.
SCOTUSblog: Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders
http://epic.org/redirect/102511-scotusblog-florence.html
EPIC: Doe v. Luzerne County
http://epic.org/amicus/luzerne/
EPIC: Herring v. U.S.
http://epic.org/privacy/herring/
Sen. Rockefeller Requests FTC Report on Facial Recognition Technology
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) has sent a letter to the Federal
Trade Commission, requesting that the Commission submit a report
summarizing the use of facial recognition technology and recommend
potential legislative solutions to protect privacy. Rockefeller's letter
specifically cited mobile applications such as SceneTap, which "tracks
the male/female ratio and age mix of the crowd [in bars]" and digital
advertising at the Venetian Resort in Las Vegas that tailors ads to the
person standing in front of the display based on age and gender. The
Federal Trade Commission will hold a workshop on facial recognition
technology on December 8, 2011. EPIC's complaint regarding Facebook's
use of facial recognition technology is still pending before the FTC.
Sen. J. Rockefeller: Letter to FTC (Oct. 12, 2011)
http://epic.org/redirect/102511-rockefeller-ftc-letter.html
FTC: Workshop on Facial Recognition Technology
http://ftc.gov/opa/2011/09/facialrec.shtm
EPIC: Complaint Re: Facebook Facial Recognition (June 10, 2011)
http://epic.org/redirect/102511-epic-fb-facial-complaint.html
EPIC: In re Facebook
http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/facebook_and_facial_recognitio.html
EPIC: Facial Recognition
http://epic.org/privacy/facerecognition/
Congressional Watchdog: DHS Data Mining Programs Pose Risk to Privacy
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has performed a detailed
evaluation of data mining practices at the Department of Homeland
Security. According to the GAO's report, privacy protections and
transparency are vital to data mining operations; however, the report
states that Homeland Security's practices did not "adequately ensure
the protection of privacy-related information." in 2009, EPIC called
for an investigation of the DHS Privacy Office and maintained that the
agency's Chief Privacy Officer was not complying with the statutory
requirements necessary to protect privacy.
GAO: Report on DHS Data Mining Practices (Sept. 2011)
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11742.pdf
EPIC: Letter to Congress Re: DHS Chief Privacy Officer (Oct. 23, 2009)
http://epic.org/security/DHS_CPO_Priv_Coal_Letter.pdf
DHS: Privacy Office
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0338.shtm
EPIC: DHS Chief Privacy Officer and Privacy
http://epic.org/privacy/dhs-cpo.html
Appeals Court: ECPA Protects Noncitizens
The Ninth Circuit Federal Appeals Court ruled October 3 that foreign
citizens are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
or ECPA . The court's decision in Suzlon Energy v. Microsoft Corp.
reaffirms that ECPA protects consumer data without regard to
nationality, by forbidding companies in most circumstances from
disclosing communications data with third parties. Suzlon involves a
civil suit in which Microsoft refused to disclose data from the
Hotmail email account of Rajagopalan Sridhar, an Indian citizen.
Indian company Suzlon Energy claimed that Sridhar, an employee, had
committed fraud.
Ninth Circuit Court: Suzlon Energy v. Microsoft Corp. (Oct. 3, 2011)
http://epic.org/redirect/102511-suzlon.html
Electronic Communications Privacy Act
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_121.html
EPIC: Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance
http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/
=======================================================================
[7] EPIC Book Review: 'Unpopular Privacy'
=======================================================================
"Unpopular Privacy: What Must We Hide?" Anita L. Allen
http://epic.org/redirect/102511-unpopular-privacy-anita-allen.html
In "Unpopular Privacy," Anita L. Allen, a professor of Law and
Philosophy at Penn State University, explores the ethical and
philosophical underpinnings of privacy law by addressing a difficult
question: When should the government "enact or enforce coercive privacy
laws that affected individuals may not welcome?" By analyzing the
normative foundations of privacy law, as well as recent developments in
physical and informational privacy, Allen offers the contentious claim
that "privacy is so important and so neglected in contemporary life
that democratic states, though liberal and feminist, could be justified
in undertaking a rescue mission that includes enacting paternalistic
privacy laws for the benefit of uneager beneficiaries."
"Unpopular Privacy" is made up of three parts. In Part One, "Normative
Foundations," Allen explores "the case within liberal political and
moral theory for imposing unwelcome duties of privacy and limiting the
alienability of privacy rights." In Part Two, "Physical Privacies:
Seclusion and Concealment," she explores the divergent treatment and
moral underpinnings of "modesty" and "nudity" laws in the United States
and Europe. Part Three, "Information Privacies: Confidentiality and
Data Protection," makes the case for "confidentiality" mandates,
cautions against the expansion of "racial privacy" laws, and decries
the refusal of adults and children alike to respect their own privacy
in the digital space. Each section contains a series of short essays
organized by topic, with provocative titles like "Privacies Not
Wanted," "Seclusion," "Modesty," "Nudity," "Confidentiality," "Racial
Privacy," "The Electronic Data Give-Away," and "Popular Paternalism."
"Unpopular Privacy" makes a strong case for the proposition that
"privacy, like information sharing, has a place in a free society."
Allen identifies an "ambiguity in the philosophical literature
defending privacy," where it is unclear whether "it is the opportunity
to choose the experience of privacy that is supposed to be vitally
important, or [the] actual experience of privacy." Professor Allen
argues that "privacy rights should do more than simply offer the
opportunity for privacy," and that the experience of privacy is
severely degraded in the context of digital information.
Allen concludes "Unpopular Privacy" by discussing it in the context of
the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA. COPPA is a
clear example of a privacy law that aims to protect a "beneficiary"
group (children under 13) who would rather not be protected. As Allen
puts it, "[p]op music and sweets are more important to children than
electronic information privacy and data protection." However, she also
points out COPPAs "normative weaknesses," including its lack of
distinction between teenagers and "'tweenagers," and the fact that the
Act only covers children's data and not other forms of cyber-danger.
"Unpopular Privacy" provides a thorough and insightful discussion of
key and controversial privacy issues. Anita Allen successfully
addresses the tension between strong privacy protections and the core
values of a liberal democracy. She argues that coercing privacy might
be justified even where it is unpopular: "Privacy aligns not with
raw preference," she states, "but with prudent self-interest."
-- Alan Butler
================================
EPIC Publications:
"Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2010," edited by
Harry A. Hammitt, Marc Rotenberg, John A. Verdi, Ginger McCall, and Mark
S. Zaid (EPIC 2010). Price: $75
http://epic.org/bookstore/foia2010/
Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws is the most
comprehensive, authoritative discussion of the federal open access laws.
This updated version includes new material regarding President Obama's
2009 memo on Open Government, Attorney General Holder's March 2009 memo
on FOIA Guidance, and the new executive order on declassification. The
standard reference work includes in-depth analysis of litigation under:
the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, and the Government in the Sunshine Act. The fully updated
2010 volume is the 25th edition of the manual that lawyers, journalists
and researchers have relied on for more than 25 years.
================================
"Information Privacy Law: Cases and Materials, Second Edition" Daniel
J. Solove, Marc Rotenberg, and Paul Schwartz. (Aspen 2005). Price: $98.
http://www.epic.org/redirect/aspen_ipl_casebook.html
This clear, comprehensive introduction to the field of information
privacy law allows instructors to enliven their teaching of fundamental
concepts by addressing both enduring and emerging controversies. The
Second Edition addresses numerous rapidly developing areas of privacy
law, including: identity theft, government data mining and electronic
surveillance law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
intelligence sharing, RFID tags, GPS, spyware, web bugs, and more.
Information Privacy Law, Second Edition, builds a cohesive foundation
for an exciting course in this rapidly evolving area of law.
================================
"Privacy & Human Rights 2006: An International Survey of Privacy Laws
and Developments" (EPIC 2007). Price: $75.
http://www.epic.org/phr06/
This annual report by EPIC and Privacy International provides an
overview of key privacy topics and reviews the state of privacy in over
75 countries around the world. The report outlines legal protections,
new challenges, and important issues and events relating to privacy.
Privacy & Human Rights 2006 is the most comprehensive report on privacy
and data protection ever published.
================================
"The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook: Perspectives on the World Summit on
the Information Society" (EPIC 2004). Price: $40.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pvsourcebook
This resource promotes a dialogue on the issues, the outcomes, and the
process of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). This
reference guide provides the official UN documents, regional and
issue-oriented perspectives, and recommendations and proposals for
future action, as well as a useful list of resources and contacts for
individuals and organizations that wish to become more involved in the
WSIS process.
================================
"The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2004: United States Law, International Law,
and Recent Developments," Marc Rotenberg, editor (EPIC 2005). Price:
$40.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pls2004/
The Privacy Law Sourcebook, which has been called the "Physician's Desk
Reference" of the privacy world, is the leading resource for students,
attorneys, researchers, and journalists interested in pursuing privacy
law in the United States and around the world. It includes the full
texts of major privacy laws and directives such as the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, the Privacy Act, and the OECD Privacy Guidelines, as
well as an up-to-date section on recent developments. New materials
include the APEC Privacy Framework, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act,
and the CAN-SPAM Act.
================================
"Filters and Freedom 2.0: Free Speech Perspectives on Internet Content
Controls" (EPIC 2001). Price: $20.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/filters2.0
A collection of essays, studies, and critiques of Internet content
filtering. These papers are instrumental in explaining why filtering
threatens free expression.
================================
EPIC publications and other books on privacy, open government, free
expression, crypto and governance can be ordered at:
EPIC Bookstore
http://www.epic.org/bookstore
================================
EPIC also publishes EPIC FOIA Notes, which provides brief summaries of
interesting documents obtained from government agencies under the
Freedom of Information Act.
Subscribe to EPIC FOIA Notes at:
http://mailman.epic.org/mailman/listinfo/foia_notes
=======================================================================
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
=======================================================================
EPIC Public Voice Conference. Mexico City, Mexico, 31 October 2011. For
More Information: http://www.thepublicvoice.org/.
33rd International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy
Commissioners (ICDPPC 2011). Mexico City, Mexico, 2-3 November 2011.
For more information: http://www.privacyconference2011.org/.
8th Conference on Privacy and Public Access to Court Records.
Sponsored by the College of William and Mary School of Law.
Williamsburg, VA, 3-4 November 2011. For More Information:
http://www.legaltechcenter.net/aspx/conferences.aspx.
Workshop on Cryptography for Emerging Technologies and Applications.
NIST Campus, Gaithersburg, MD, 7-8 November 2011. For More Information:
http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/ct/ceta-workshop.cfm.
2nd Annual GridWise(R) Global Forum, Co-Hosted by the GridWise(R)
Alliance and the US Dept. of Energy. Washington, DC, 8-10 November
2011. For More Information: http://www.gridwiseglobalforum.org/.
Securing Our Rights in the Information-Sharing Era. San Francisco, CA,
1-2 December 2011. For More Information:
http://www.rightsworkinggroup.org/securing-our-rights.
More Surveillance, More Security? The Landscape of Surveillance in
Europe and Challenges to Data Protection and Privacy. Brussels, 4
January 2012. For More Information:
sophie.intveld-office@europarl.europa.eu.
Computers, Privacy, & Data Protection 2012: European Data Protection:
Coming of Age. Brussels, Belgium, 25-27 January 2012, Call for Papers
Abstracts Deadline 1 June 2011. For More Information:
http://www.cpdpconferences.org.
=======================================================================
Join EPIC on Facebook and Twitter
=======================================================================
Join the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Facebook and Twitter:
http://facebook.com/epicprivacyhttp://epic.org/facebook
http://twitter.com/epicprivacy
Join us on Twitter for #privchat, Tuesdays, 11:00am ET.
Start a discussion on privacy. Let us know your thoughts.
Stay up to date with EPIC's events.
Support EPIC.
=======================================================================
Privacy Policy
=======================================================================
The EPIC Alert mailing list is used only to mail the EPIC Alert and to
send notices about EPIC activities. We do not sell, rent or share our
mailing list. We also intend to challenge any subpoena or other legal
process seeking access to our mailing list. We do not enhance (link to
other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name.
In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail address
from this list, please follow the above instructions under "subscription
information."
=======================================================================
About EPIC
=======================================================================
The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest research
center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 to focus public
attention on emerging privacy issues such as the Clipper Chip, the
Digital Telephony proposal, national ID cards, medical record privacy,
and the collection and sale of personal information. EPIC publishes the
EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act litigation, and conducts
policy research. For more information, see http://www.epic.org or write
EPIC, 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. +1 202
483 1140 (tel), +1 202 483 1248 (fax).
=======================================================================
Donate to EPIC
=======================================================================
If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic Privacy Information
Center, contributions are welcome and fully tax-deductible. Checks
should be made out to "EPIC" and sent to 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW,
Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. Or you can contribute online at:
http://www.epic.org/donate
Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act and
First Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for the right
of privacy and efforts to oppose government regulation of encryption and
expanding wiretapping powers.
Thank you for your support.
=======================================================================
Subscription Information
=======================================================================
Subscribe/unsubscribe via web interface:
http://mailman.epic.org/mailman/listinfo/epic_news
Back issues are available at:
http://www.epic.org/alert
The EPIC Alert displays best in a fixed-width font, such as Courier.
------------------------- END EPIC Alert 18.21 ------------------------